Evidence of meeting #45 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You must have delegation to do that, but the House has to do that first, before you can do it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We did not go to the House with regard to the Schreiber issue on the one that we were dealing with, which was François Martin, because he ultimately agreed to come. But we never did have to go to the House. The chair, at his discretion....
At page 861 of Marleau and Montpetit, it says, “When a witness has declined an invitation to appear, a committee may issue a summons to that witness by adopting a motion to that effect.” However, you have raised the question, and certainly, Mr. Tilson, the delegation of this responsibility to the chair is only operative to the extent that it is in accordance with the rules of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, no question.
Resuming debate, we have a list of speakers. I apologize.
Mr. Reid, you were next on the list, and then Mr. Goodyear, Mr. Poilievre, Madame Lavallée, Mr. Dhaliwal, and then Mr. Reid again.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, I was on the list for the main motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm just carrying on with the same list. I think it's a little easier that way.
You're up, sir.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay.
Actually, that allows me to raise an important point at the start, which is that I have some comments with regard to the main motion. I have some comments with regard to the subamendment as well, but the point I want to ask you first is whether it is your intention to allow us to return to debate on the main motion after this one has been either passed or defeated. You didn't allow that the last time. It will cause me to structure my remarks differently if you intend to simply call the votes on both questions at the same time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
May I interrupt, please?
The committee actually adopted a motion of the chair that all motions necessary to dispose of the amendment and the motion be put now. That means there is no more debate on either part, so you may want to check the transcript.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm not challenging that. That raises the question, then, that it could happen again here, couldn't it?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
In that case, I'm going to take the opportunity to address both. I think you would have to find me in order in doing so, because in the history of this committee the practice has been to shut off debate by that particular tactic, and that seems likely to occur again. Certainly it is possible to begin again.
I'll start by noting the obvious thing. The Bloc Québécois submitted 45 proposed witness names, the Liberal Party submitted 43 proposed witness names, the New Democrats proposed 17 witnesses, and the Conservative Party proposed 11 witnesses. Every single witness proposed by the Conservative Party has been disallowed.
We haven't had the opportunity to hear a rationale for the basis on which members of the committee supported the chair. We did hear the chair's rationale. The obvious concern I had with that--this is relevant to the discussion under way as we look at other witnesses--is that these were people whose names were submitted with some information when they were given.
By way of example, there was Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East; Phyllis Loke was the official agent for Ms. Davies in the 2006 election. These, of course, are not all the attributes these individuals have. They are individuals with many facets to their personalities, their professions, their opinions, and so on, some of which could have been relevant to the matter under way, particularly in a comparison between their practices, which in many cases, and even the cases listed here, were identical to those Elections Canada disallowed in the case of the Conservative candidates. That's the relevance.
At any rate, members might have tried to question them about matters outside the subject matter of the debate. That could have been ruled out of order. Their commentary on the similarities between their practices--or dissimilarities, as the case may be--would have shed some light on the disallowance by Elections Canada of the election expenses of various Conservative candidates. That would have made them very germane indeed.
I notice that you didn't disallow Mr. Sears, who was the only one submitted without some description beside his name. Mr. Martin has done so, I assume because one of the features of Mr. Sears--who, like all the other people on the list, is a person with many aspects to his personality, his professional life, his interests, and so on--is that he has gone on record as regarding these proceedings as being inappropriate. This fits in with a certain pattern of behaviour of the members on the opposite side of this committee, which is to disallow any testimony that is not in favour of the position they want. Mr. Mayrand, for example, was dismissed when he was saying things that were not in accordance with their narrative.
Mr. Sears, I can guarantee, would not have been in accordance with their narrative, and I suspect that Libby Davies or Rick Limoges or Jean-Paul Marchand, a Bloc Québécois candidate in the 2000 general election, also would not have given testimony that fits in with their narrative, but it would have as long as you as chair were able to steer them in the appropriate direction--that is, only focusing on responding to questions that deal with the consistency of the application of the law to their party and their campaigns and the Conservative Party and various Conservative candidates in the 2006 election. It would have been entirely germane. These are pretty significant points.
Three experts on election laws were proposed by the Liberal Party, and Madam Jennings defended their presence. It's not for me to say whether they have germane comments to make. One assumes they probably would. I'm at pains to figure out why they are any more qualified or any less qualified than Mr. Sears, who Mr. Martin's motion would propose removing from the list. All of them are people who deal with the process. There's no distinction that I can determine, other than when I made a comment about Mr. Sears' personality, Mr. Martin said he has a terrible personality. Well, Mr. Martin's personal dislike for Mr. Sears does not constitute a reason not to have him here.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Heaven only knows, if committee membership were based on personality, a number of us might not qualify. I don't think that should be a basis for making that decision. Mr. Sears does have relevant things to say, and he has said them publicly. Bringing those things before the committee would be relevant. I think that's a consideration we should take into account.
Let me talk for a moment about Mr. Jean Landry. I can't comment about Lise Vallières, but she was his official agent in the 2006 campaign. My understanding is that Mr. Landry, who was the candidate for the Conservative Party in the 2006 election, has since left the Conservative Party. He is now either seeking or has won a Liberal nomination; I'm not sure which of the two is correct. At any rate, one assumes his presence would make obvious the conflict--which is not the right term--he is in as someone seeking election as a Liberal candidate and who needs to do what he can to discredit the Conservative Party to assist in winning his campaign. That certainly makes the motivation behind removing him from the list apparent.
But he's the only person of the 105 proposals by the other parties who is being challenged at this point, whereas every single one of the Conservative proposals--every single one--has been dismissed, just as every single one of the questions I would have asked Mr. Mayrand had his testimony continued on for the length of time he was invited was also disallowed. This just speaks to the court of star chamber or kangaroo court nature of these hearings.
There's a further problem, Mr. Chair. I'm now changing directions slightly and speaking to some of the other witnesses that neither Mr. Martin nor Madame Jennings has chosen to exclude from the list. This morning a new rule was adopted: selective interpretation of the sub judice convention. Until now we've had only contempt from the Liberals and the New Democrats for the sub judice convention. I know this because as long ago as last August I was raising questions about the legitimacy of having the procedure and House affairs committee look at this question on the basis that it was before the courts.
Up to this morning, the assumption was, who cares? We have to get on with this, and we're not going to worry about what the sub judice convention actually says. We don't care that it's before the courts; we must carry on with these proceedings--unless, of course, that involves looking at the other parties.
There's basically been a year of opposition from the other parties to dealing with anything that would involve looking at any of their practices, lest one noticed that they and we were doing the very same thing. Indeed, let it be noted that we're doing the very same thing, which the courts have upheld as being legal in dealing with the Bloc Québécois when it undertook this particular action and enforced upon its candidates the requirement to transfer funds to the national campaign. In their case it was done to goose up their rebate from Elections Canada; sub judice convention simply didn't matter.
It didn't even matter yesterday, when before the committee Mr. Mayrand was able to answer us on questions relating to matters that were before the court in relation to the case in which Conservative official agents are challenging the non-rebate of our money. Now it's suddenly sacred, and Mr. Mayrand was unable to answer questions that he himself had raised with us--for example, his five criteria for allowing or disallowing rebates.
The committee having adopted this rule, I cannot help but notice the large number of potential witnesses not challenged by either Mr. Martin or Madam Jennings and who are apparently acceptable to the other side and yet are implicated in this particular court action. Indeed, every single official agent who's on this list—that's not everybody on the list, but every single one who is an official agent—would be implicated. By way of example, in the riding of Beauce, Aline Drouin; in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent, André Laurin; and in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, Manon Blanchette, etc., are involved in this court action.
Indeed, anything they would have to say...because these are not people who are academic experts, or people who are seasoned partisans, like Mr. Sears, or people who have tenure at Simon Fraser University or the University of Windsor, as Professor Heard and Professor MacIvor, respectively, do. These are people who would have nothing to offer this committee other than commentary and testimony pertaining to the court action that we have decided--or more correctly, you have decided this morning, Mr. Chair--is outside the bounds of allowable testimony. Therefore, effectively what we're doing is disallowing people who could provide testimony without violating the sub judice convention, such as Lucy Ladouceur, who engaged in actions as the NDP bookkeeper in the 2006 election that were parallel to those undertaken by the Conservative Party, but who is not party to the court action. She actually could provide commentary and testimony that would not violate the sub judice convention. But she is excluded.
Also excluded is Libby Davies and Phyllis Loke, the official agent to Ms. Davies. They were both involved in a transfer of funds that exactly paralleled the practice the Conservative Party engaged in for advertising purposes, and they could provide commentary on what we are contesting is the inconsistent application of the law by Elections Canada. They would be in order; they would not be violating the sub judice convention.
Indeed, almost with the exception of the academic experts—though I should be a little bit cautious here, as there may be the odd person here who also is not directly involved in the relevant court action—and the people who've been excluded, there is no one on this list who won't essentially, in the majority of their testimony, find themselves in the position of violating the sub judice convention if they come before us and answer questions.
Some of them are sophisticated individuals, I grant you that. I think Janice Vézina, the associate deputy chief electoral officer at Elections Canada, is a sophisticated person who would understand and be able to say, look, at this point you're asking me a question that relates to the matter that we're dealing with in the legal proceeding between ourselves and the official agents. But the official agents who are involved have no role in dealing with policy, in dealing with the application of elections law, except in the capacity they were in when they were official agents in an election, the proceedings of which are now the subject of this court action.
In short, the entire list is a violation of the sub judice convention, except those persons who are being slated for deletion. Because you missed a few when you listed them off, Mr. Martin has helpfully suggested another person who could provide useful testimony and removed them.
Now, I grant that Marlene Jennings, in her proposal, actually dealt with somebody who shouldn't be here, because both Mr. Landry and Lise Vallières would presumably also, in their testimony, essentially be dealing only with matters that relate to a dispute between Elections Canada and the official agents, which is before the courts. So that one deletion makes sense—although I think not for the reason.... I don't know her motivation, because she hasn't spoken to it.
I think she's worried that it will be an embarrassment for the Liberal Party. But, my goodness, you can't get on this list unless the sub judice convention is going to be violated, so I must say this is really an extraordinary document to be presented with, and an extraordinary series of proposed amendments to it.
I guess I'm really asking that the members take a step back, think very carefully about the disrepute in which the course of action they are setting us upon will put this committee, and of course the parliamentary process of which it's a part. It's unwise. I would encourage them to withdraw their motions and submotions. Failing that, I would encourage all members to vote against both Madame Jennings' subamendment and Mr. Martin's original motion.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to speak to the defeat of this subamendment, as well as the motion itself, on the grounds that Madame Jennings has attempted to pull the wool over the committee's eyes, and the eyes of the Canadians who are watching her, by offering a bone and removing a couple of members that she claims we should be happy about, when Madame Jennings knows full well that her motives are ulterior. Some of these people she wants removed are probably going to run in the next Liberal campaign. So that doesn't fool anybody except probably Madame Jennings.
We cut down the questioning today. We shortened the rounds when we had a legitimate witness before us. Mr. Reid, my colleague, is absolutely correct. The witness was quite forthright yesterday, and then he was not as forthright today when we wanted to, I suppose, ask more questions. Indeed, I had a number of questions to ask, some that would have proven quite thoroughly--if in fact, as I said many times, we were after the truth--that Libby Davis, for example, was under the orders of the federal NDP to contribute to a campaign with money going in and money coming out.
We're not saying there's anything wrong with that. We're saying that's exactly okay. It's just that here we are, and perhaps I can explain.... I know committee members here...or maybe they don't, but certainly the public watching doesn't understand that there are four members on the Conservative side, and although the majority is a great thing for Canadian democracy, here in the committee the majority happens to be the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP. That can't possibly be impartial.
Then we have a chair who's been appointed by the Liberals, and is a Liberal himself, and has made a substantial amount of what I would argue are partisan decisions, but--
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please. The member is on a point of privilege. He has that right, and it even takes precedence over a point of order.
Mr. Hubbard.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, it's the second time today that this member indicated publicly that the chair of this committee was appointed by the Liberal Party. The chair, in fact, was appointed by this committee.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. I appreciate the effort, but it is not a matter of privilege.
Liberal
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
The issue that I want to raise and appeal to committee members is that we're now at, again, a crossroads in this committee. I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning, but we obviously have a majority on the opposite side, and they have come up with a new trick which we saw displayed today. We saw it displayed at the June meeting when you yourself, Mr. Chair, arbitrarily--and in my opinion quite illegally--cut the debate to a close.